When I hear someone say that soldiers “defend our freedom,” my immediate response is to gag. I think the last time American soldiers actually fought for the freedom of Americans was probably the Revolutionary War — or maybe the War of 1812, if you want to be generous. Every war since then has been for nothing but to uphold a system of power, and to make the rich folks even richer.

But I can think of one exception. If there’s a soldier anywhere in the world who’s fought and suffered for my freedom, it’s Pfc. Bradley Manning.

Manning is frequently portrayed, among the knuckle-draggers on right-wing message boards, as some sort of spoiled brat or ingrate, acting on an adolescent whim. But that’s not quite what happened, according to Johann Hari (“The under-appreciated heroes of 2010,” The Independent, Dec. 24).

Manning, like many young soldiers, joined up in the naive belief that he was defending the freedom of his fellow Americans. When he got to Iraq, he found himself working under orders “to round up and hand over Iraqi civilians to America’s new Iraqi allies, who he could see were then torturing them with electrical drills and other implements.” The people he arrested, and handed over for torture, were guilty of such “crimes” as writing “scholarly critiques” of the U.S. occupation forces and its puppet government. When he expressed his moral reservations to his supervisor, Manning “was told to shut up and get back to herding up Iraqis.”

The people Manning saw tortured, by the way, were frequently the very same people who had been tortured by Saddam: Trade unionists, members of the Iraqi Freedom Congress, and other freedom-loving people who had no more use for Halliburton and Blackwater than they had for the Baath Party.

For exposing his government’s crimes against humanity, Manning has spent seven months in solitary confinement — a torture deliberately calculated to break the human mind.

We see a lot of “serious thinkers” on the op-ed pages and talking head shows, people like David Gergen, Chris Matthews and Michael Kinsley, going on about all the stuff that Manning’s leaks have impaired the ability of “our government” to do.

He’s impaired the ability of the U.S. government to conduct diplomacy in pursuit of some fabled “national interest” that I supposedly have in common with Microsoft, Wal-Mart and Disney. He’s risked untold numbers of innocent lives, according to the very same people who have ordered the deaths of untold thousands of innocent people. According to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Manning’s exposure of secret U.S. collusion with authoritarian governments in the Middle East, to promote policies that their peoples would find abhorrent, undermines America’s ability to promote “democracy, open government, and free and open societies.”

But I’ll tell you what Manning’s really impaired government’s ability to do.

He’s impaired the U.S. government’s ability to lie us into wars where thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of foreigners are murdered.

He’s impaired its ability to use such wars — under the guise of promoting “democracy” — to install puppet governments like the Coalition Provisional Authority, that will rubber stamp neoliberal “free trade” agreements (including harsh “intellectual property” provisions written by the proprietary content industries) and cut special deals with American crony capitalists.

He’s impaired its ability to seize good, decent people who — unlike most soldiers — really are fighting for freedom, and hand them over to thuggish governments for torture with power tools.

Let’s get something straight. Bradley Manning may be a criminal by the standards of the American state. But by all human standards of morality, the government and its functionaries that Manning exposed to the light of day are criminals. And Manning is a hero of freedom for doing it.

So if you’re one of the authoritarian state-worshipers, one of the groveling sycophants of power, who are cheering on Manning’s punishment and calling for even harsher treatment, all I can say is that you’d probably have been there at the crucifixion urging Pontius Pilate to lay the lashes on a little harder. You’d have told the Nazis where Anne Frank was hiding. You’re unworthy of the freedoms which so many heroes and martyrs throughout history — heroes like Bradley Manning — have fought to give you.

Surely the current regime Bradley appears to be being kept under is inimical to any kind of a "fair trial". There is plenty of evidence that this sort of treatment "breaks" a person, mentally and physically. He may be being pumped full of anti-depressants to keep him on an "even keel" but surely even then any serious lawyer could make a case that a. any evidence gained from him under these conditions was obtained under duress and therefore useless and untrustworthy, and b. that these very conditions render him incompetent to face trial himself?

I wonder whether he is effectively being given the "full treatment" now because his captors know, essentially, that they will not get an opportunity to punish him again – that he will either be incompetent to face trial or would be acquitted on anything but the most minor of charges they could dream up.

Either way, I hope that all the expressions of support for this brave young man keep his spirits up. He is no Daniel Ellsberg – in that he does not have the privileged, highly educated background and inside track with the establishment that comes with a RAND Corp job – which makes that support so much more important.

I believe the only thing he's actually charged with is some kind of misuse of government property. They haven't explicitly charged him with espionage or treason. Most speculation seems to be that they're treating him this way to get him to flip on any co-conspirators and on Wikileaks.

I'm sure they'll use the same (il)legal tactics they've used with the various Gitmo and other prisoners of war to keep any defense lawyer from having a fighting chance.

What, if anything, do you reckon can be done to lever his dual citizenship? After all, the UK managed to get some favours for Gitmo UK dual nationality prisoners whose claims to UK citizenship were a lot less well founded than Bradley's.

I thought US citizens couldn't hold dual nationality, but have seen reports that Manning is dual UK/US.

Very well put!
It's saddening that the whole "the government needs secrecy to do wonderful nice things for us" argument even get's accepted as "thought" let alone "serious thought", especially since the same people would probably agree that many of society's problems could probably be fixed by a more informed populace! Obviously it is a nirvana fallacy and if the government genuinely requires secrecy from us to provide us with security then we may as well cut our losses and accept that security is not an option because we have REAL governments, not philosopher kings.
My recent post More Than a Political Philosophy

“You are obviously a young liberal with no concept of reality or patriotism. I will do us both a favor and de friend you as I have no time for cowards who would defend such a gregarious and flagrant violation of trust towards the country who so many have sacrificed their lives for you to be able have the freedom to be an embarrassment to the rest of is.” — some statist on Facebook who defriended and blocked me after I quoted the last paragraph of the above article as my status. LOL!

It just goes to show how thick-skinned and idiotic most statists really are. Incidentally, this same person casually (and rather callously, I might add) remarked that he hopes Mr. Manning gets executed. What a sociopath.

US citizens certainly can hold multiple nationalities. Witness, for example, Terry Gilliam, who renounced his American citizenship some years back.
My recent post Assange- Manning “a political prisoner”

Bradley gave me hope in myself and in others. I am not a total liberal as some, but I am starting to understand their fight and finally I am free of morals and judgements and I couldn't be happier.
This guy has paid a very high price, I don't have the heart to be like him.

Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive. __Ayn Rand ____ Diplomats are just as essential to starting a war as soldiers are for finishing it…. You take diplomacy out of war, and the thing would fall flat in a week. __Will Rogers (1879-1935) ____The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. __Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) ____War is a profession by which a man cannot live honorably

It's sad to see how many people are happy to sacrifice freedom and would probably be cheering if our countries became fascist totalitarian states – I thought this was limited to countries like Russia with dictators like Putin (a fascist with popular support). But it seems that we in the West suffer from this tendency too. That deeply saddens me.

Josh: Sounded like the person who defriended you was one of those "conservatives" who claims to fear the government — until it wraps himself up in the flag. Someone should tell him the modern national security state and overseas Empire were CREATED by liberals. And I always thought "patriotism" was about loving the country, not loving the Wall Street and Pentagon parasites infesting its colon.
My recent post Homebrew Industrial Revolution in Kindle Format

That you can read such words as;
"the last time American soldiers actually fought for the freedom of Americans was probably the Revolutionary War — or maybe the War of 1812, if you want to be generous. Every war since then has been for nothing but to uphold a system of power, and to make the rich folks even richer.:,
…… that you can read those words and not immediately dismiss the author as deranged and/or living in a fantasy world……. speaks volumes about your ideology, and your blind adherence to :doctrine: as spouted by your "heroes of the movement".

"I think the last time American soldiers actually fought for the freedom of Americans was probably the Revolutionary War — or maybe the War of 1812, if you want to be generous. Every war since then has been for nothing but to uphold a system of power, and to make the rich folks even richer."

I would argue that World War 2 was the last time we fought for freedom, you know, from that genocidal, racist Nazi war machine.

That little skermish.

(Yes, we entered it late, as it was turning, and only after we were attacked, but that doesn't dismiss the morality of it.)

Silent_Surface, how on earth can anyone ever see American soldiers as anything else, without starting with a large dose of preconceptions about that? Try working back from the position you hold to what underpins it, and if you do that objectively enough you will see that you are taking those things as given, not as things that you can observe – yet, while observation usually does not bear them out, you are not checking them with observation because you are taking them as given.

The trouble is, someone convinced of the righteousness of his position can easily jump immediately to the conclusion that what he does is right ipso facto, never even applying elementary tests to see if this or that particular thing he is about to do is right or wrong, and so slips into doing much wrong without ever realising it. That way antinomianism lies, as it did with the Anabaptists of 16th century Germany – and is it does with the USA of today.

So, Silent Surface — What are your candidates for wars in which soldiers defended American freedom?

I'm guessing WWII is probably at the top of your list, which is understandable if you take at face value the official account of Pearl Harbor and ignore the fact that it grew out of a prolonged period of imperial dick-waving between the U.S. and Japan over the markets and resources of the Western Pacific.

What I can't imagine is how you could see there being even a remotely plausible case for any other war. I mean, come on. The Mexican War and Spanish-American War, both of them nothing but sordid imperial power grabs? WWI, which was nothing but a failure of brinksmanship between two alliances of corrupt European powers? Korea? Vietnam?

Kevin has stated the situation quite well. And it is encouraging to read over the past few months the defense of Bradley Manning's actions to bring more of the truth of government military enforcer killings to light. I have been convinced that Bradley acted as a person horrified at the information (Afghanistan related) that he had come across in his work and considered it imperative that other USers be aware of the same. The media writers/commenters (and some politicians) who want him prosecuted – even shot by a firing squad – would likely have praised Nazi German and Soviet Russian soldiers who provided similar information to a publisher for world-wide dissemination. The philosophical contradiction by such writers/commenters is clear to me.

I have been writing online for years that the soldiers/sailors/marines – the government enforcers in geographical areas outside the USA – are the key to stopping wars, just as they are the essential key to starting them. I write it this way because, the hundreds of thousands of ordinary soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen are the ones doing the actual harm – most of it per order of their non-coms, officers and high command including the President. Do you think that the high command generals, admirals and the President are going to go out in the field and enforce their own orders to fire the guns, tanks, missiles, to set the traps/bombs, deploy the drones or even do the maintenance and repair on the various equipment used? No way!

In September 2005 I ventured onto the blog, "A Soldier's Thoughts" in the entry, "On Killing" – http://misoldierthoughts.blogspot.com/2005/09/on-… – making the the last comment of 44 that spanned 8 days. In October 2005 I placed my comment along with the exchanges I had with one commenter, a different soldier's wife (on another of The Soldier's blog entries) on a webpage, "Exchange Regarding Social Preferencing and Support of Participants in Offensive Military Action" – http://selfsip.org/dialogues/misc/preferencing_su…

Protesting in writing and person against the current administration's continued warfare in Iraq, escalation of it in Afghanistan and talk (and plans?) of it in Iran (and who knows where else) is good. BUT it is not enough! The actual enforcers of the government's plans are the key!!

If large numbers of the troops become convinced to cease being the fingers on the triggers, then the current wars (and those on the drawing board or just possibilities) will burn out from lack of fuel. I recommend families and friends to use logical persuasion of the above type to urge their military enforcer to cease being so and to resign, refuse re-enlistment and instead to get truly productive employment. And do not hesitate to urge potential enlistees to take a non-military route for employment. Also, if family/friend military members have the courage to refuse deployment (while attempting to resign) and the possible ensuing military court repercussions, support them openly and heavily.

An additional method of persuasion for those who will not be convinced of the logic above is to refuse to voluntarily associate with them – those individuals who continue in or join the military and those persons who "support" the troops as they continue to inflict harm. This negative social preferencing (contrasted with the positive form to favor those approved) has been referred to as ostracism in many parts of the world for centuries and has been an effective method of nonviolent political action. (Writings of Gene Sharp recommended.)

Never forget that the troops themselves are *the key* to stopping – or starting – any war!
———-end of comment to "No One Else Will Stop the Killing" by Mike Ferner————

And each individual has the capability to help turn that key – pun intended – away from war initiation/maintenance.

The reason Manning can hold a dual UK/US citizenship is due to the fact that under UK law, UK citizenship is forever–It cannot be revoked nor renounced.

On the other hand, the US government does not recognize dual citizenship for adults and requires naturalized citizens to renounce any previous citizenship/nationality. So in a nutshell, the UK may recognize Manning's UK citizenship, but the US most likely does not.

The UK is also unlikely to to bat for Manning out of a desire not to upset its much larger ally.

“Morally we interact with others by avoiding mismatches between what we saywe are ,what we are, and the world we have to deal with as well as by abiding by those other cultural codes or standards that we are expected to uphold “
"john boyd usaf"
What bradley manning,julian assange and wiki leaks has revealed is our covert actions belie the words spoken America ask been unmasked and found wanting
what wikileaks has done is the same tactic developed by this man that lead to americas swift victory in the gulf war change the dynamics of the information flow then overwelm the enemy with information numbing thier response
to qoute warren buffet you find out whos swimming naked when the tide goes out america you are well exposed

"I would argue that World War 2 was the last time we fought for freedom, you know, from that genocidal, racist Nazi war machine. "

A reasonable, but incomplete argument. Add "and to preserve the evil totalitarian Soviet empire that killed even more of its own citizens and allow it to expand and enslave even more people."

I'm still not convinced that the U.S.'s entry into WWII was a net positive for world freedom. Had the U.S. stayed out, I believe both the Nazis and Soviets would have probably collapsed under the weight of a prolonged war of attrition against each other, which might have been a net good compared to what actually happened during the cold war. And the Asian theater is equally murky, given that Mao possibly killed more of his own citizens than Hitler and Stalin combined.

In other words, WWII was much like WWI – a bunch of evil people fighting each other who managed to pull in some relatively non-evil bystanders to aid one brand of evil over another (and even that is probably being too kind).

I think Mr. Manning should be put in front of a wall and shot as a trader. Save tax payers money, shoot the coward!!!!!!!

******************************************************

Reply to Bill: It’s obvious that you a clown short of a circus. The scariest part: You are most likely allowed to vote. If you’d lived during WWII – your attiutde would have made you a number 1 candidate as a gate keeper in the Nazi concentration Camps ..

I agree with your defense of Bradley Manning. However, your view of history and war is naive and, in fact, simply wrong. But the point I want to make is this: the current democracy (let's talk America, but it's the same in Europe) is broken. Elections are no longer an agent for change. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are the same Corporate Party. They use different rhetoric but the results are almost always the same – the wealthy and corporate interests get what they want and the average American citizen is ignored (with the occasional bone thrown to them to create the illusion of progress and a working democracy. eg. unemployment extensions and watered-down health reform). (I highly recommend Chris Hedges' "The Death of the Liberal Class," to understand how the corporations have seduced and neutralized the liberal elite.) Bottom line is all politicians need big money to keep their jobs every election cycle. Despite Obama's "grass-roots" and "internet" campaign, (and all the promise that it held), he spent $600 million for his presidential campaign – most of which came from big money, big business. So, what can the average American do now to get the attention of politicians in DC and around the country? How do we show them how serious we are about getting OUR power back? We do this by turning the power off, by depriving them, ALL OF THEM, of the one thing we control – OUR VOTE. That's right. A massive BOYCOTT OF ALL ELECTIONS to create the very real threat of a system breakdown. (Your vote doesn't matter anyway.) If voter turnout fell to below 20% one of two things would happen: either the politicians would get the message for real and, at least, reform campaign finance rules to prevent a collapse of the democratic system OR they really don't care one bit and let the course we're on accelerate to allow the corporate oligarchy come to power. If they let the end game play out, then, that is when the real revolution will begin. Either way, a boycott of all elections will stir the pot in a real and measurable way. Otherwise, people will play the game, partake of the sham democracy, vote for him or her and the status quo will win. Register your "vote" of NO-CONFIDENCE in our democratic system – BOYCOTT ALL ELECTIONS. No campaign finance reform – no votes! No campaign finance reform – no votes! http://bit.ly/b7BksT

Above this post there lies a response so typical of what conditioning does to the human mind. This fool has been conditioned in such a way that he can no longer accept humanity and his own thoughts. But would rather take shelter under a government control that steals his wealth and his children's life with their fabricated wars. Remember this Josh, always take advise but be careful of those who shove it down your throat, because next they might have something for your ass.
Also note a patriot is not one that follows blindly government corruption but is one that fights against them.

Mike, just a small sidenote to your reply,
Sanctions are indeed an act of war. When one country puts sanctions on the other poor people are affected.
The US had sanctions on Japan long before they bombed us. We threatened them and on the arrival of the information that bombers were approaching pearl harbor the president did nothing. They wanted the bombing to enrage the American citizen to get involved with the war. Cheveron financed Germany in ww2.
The US imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Japanese in concentration camps during the war.
We have so much to be proud of lets not make war one of them for none have really given this country honor. Just a thought.

Another relevant point about WW2: War is not only a boon to the military, it promotes blood flow to all organs of the state. War, being the health of the state, makes things that would otherwise be politically unthinkable, become politically profitable, even inevitable. This was clearly true of the American State during WW2 (think Japanese internment), and it was no less true of the Third Reich. Hitler may have always wanted to murder the Jewish people, but there was never any guarantee that he could pull it off. Nothing like a total war to make it a little easier. Had the U.S. stayed out, might the Jews have gotten off a little easier? Or at least had more time to flee? Hitler was already at war, but America helped to escalate it. We can’t know for sure, but it’s far from obvious that U.S. involvement was a net benefit even for Jews in the Third Reich.

The War of 1812 started out as a failed US invasion of Canada, blatantly violating the Non-Aggression Principle. Of course the British overstepped the bound by turning an initially defensive war into an offensive one. So the US stood justified in face of the Non-Aggression Principle in the later phase.

Nevertheless, if I am not wrong, even during the Revolutionary War, colonials (they were sill British then) had invaded Canada once to coerce Canadians into joining the fight against the Imperial Regulars. Overall, the Revolutionary is still consistent with the Non-Aggression Principle.